spin

The Joshua info indicates a place south of Judah, what we would call Arabia today (the term "Arabia" had a greater range in ancient times). The Greek translator understood what the writer of Joshua did for Goshen.

Would you want to advocate two Goshens in the same basic area? Isn't it easier to see the writers getting their facts confused?


spin

spin

Let's just turn a blind eye to Joshua. Your arguments are too often ignoring what you don't like. It doesn't go away.


spin

Ben C Smith

The famous Arnold and Libby paper of 1949 is available online. Would you mind commenting on it as pertains to the New Chronology dates? Some of the ± variances are pretty wide (3700±400, for example, for the Sesostris boat), others less so. When Andrew Criddle asks about the Rohl dates falling outside the usual range of C14 dates, how many dates from the New Chronology are we talking about? Is it only a handful, or is there a broader trend?

Thank you.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Chink. This reminds me of the carbon dating of The Shroud. The Shroud was already determined to be 14th century based on the available evidence and carbon dating confirmed this date. The standard control before the three independent and prestigious laboratories dated The Shroud was for them to date the same 3 relics, one of which was ancient Egyptian, all with well known dates. All labs dated the relics within the normal acceptable ranges.

We've seen how much consensus there is between Rohl and Kitchen. Note how Rohl also claims uncertainty when the evidence appears to go against him such as "s" to "sh" (shhheee) and tendency to use shortened version of names from the other language not to mention dealing with a language that has not been used and the related culture ignored by its natives for 2,000 years.

Presenting one supposed counter-example (with exponentially older dates) does not negate or even seriously question the evidential value of carbon dating. The fact is carbon dating is objective evidence and Egyptologist dating of ancient Egypt is subjective. So instead of minimizing the carbon dating evidence which goes against his theory Rohl should acknowledge that it is not only evidence against but weighty evidence against.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

Not clear to modern scholars. They can't really comment on ancient language users. They can't ask any.

We can only really talk about the written evidence. Please stick to that -- it's safer.

I don't know what you are really trying to prove here. It seems unrelated to your issue that the /s/ from Ramses' hypochoristic name somehow gets transliterated as the letter shin rather than samek.

The above shows at least two examples of Hebrew words which have cognates in Akkadian, three, if we add Akkadian sharapu. You were supposed to be talking about terms borrowed into Hebrew from Egyptian.

Now the possibility that the Egyptian /s/ -> "sin", hence written shin, is a plausible trajectory if it were ever followed, but you don't actually deal with the issue in any meaningful way in the post I'm responding to.

(Umm, Strongs?! Strongs' guess is as good as yours. Don't use it as currency: you'll get arrested for fraud.)

(The etymology of the latter is "disputed". BDB supplies a different trajectory: from the Greek metaxa via Syria mdq$, then metathesized.)

You must be joking. I don't think we're on the same page here. You are talking about nothing that will help you in borrowings from Egyptian to Hebrew, unless you honestly want to argue that the Hebrew number six comes from Egyptian. Do you??

You may be right that $$ comes from Egyptian. It's another case that there is insufficient evidence. But if you're claiming that the second /s/ -> $ is evidence for your claim, you forget that the first consonant is a $ in both and the second $ may simply be a phonological assimilation.

Akkadian shakalu and shiklu. The Hebrew is a cognate.

Akkadian shapatu. Cognate.

Couldn't find this usage of $m$. Could you supply a biblical example?

Barring the possibility of this last case, more useless examples of things that do not show what is needed. We are after an example to make your trajectory of $w$q from Ramses credible, by a /s/ becoming a shin. Once you find an example then we can consider the reason why Hebrew generally uses a samek for /s/ in other words borrowed from Egyptian.

Still unsupported.

(Think of the German Kaiser for the vowel order Caesar.)

This may be, but here's a fun fact. I've already indicated that the form $w$q, being the more difficult reading, is more likely to be the ancient form of the text. Now the fun part: each time the Hebrew text with either $w$q or $y$q is transliterated, the LXX supplies sousakim. The LXX translators tended to be literal with their transliterations from the Hebrew text and not so much influenced by other works, so sousakim is a fair reflection of the Hebrew $w$q, showing that the waw is more probable than the yod, and another nail in the coffin of your desired trajectory for Shishak. :wave:


spin

Toto

“Ötzi” the Iceman Copper AgeI don't see the oops here.

David Rohl

Duh! If we're playing the quote game:

Quote:

Ötzi the Iceman, found in the Ötztal Alps and whose remains dated about 3,300 BC was found with a copper axe, which indicates that copper mining existed in Europe at least 5,300 years ago (500 years earlier than previously believed).

It was the discovery of Ice Man and his copper axe that led to the backward revision of the start date for the Copper Age - based on the C14 date for his remains! You have here a circular argument. You can't use the C14 date for this man to push the Copper Age earlier and then say that the C14 date is consistent with the dates for the Copper Age.

matthijs

You also can't use the presence of a Copper Age item outside a subscribed date-range as impugning of C14 veracity, when the presence of the item constitutes a prima facie impugning of the subscribed range's veracity. Circular logic is clearly contagious.

Elske.

David Rohl

Not a circular argument at all because I am not saying the C14 dating is wrong, only that it is not consistent with historical dates as determined by historians and archaeologists - and therefore not generally trusted by them. It is only circular reasoning if the C14 dating method is demonstrably correct.

The circularity of the original statement by Toto was that Ice Man fell within the Copper Age when it was Ice Man who reset the start of the Copper Age in contradiction of the historically-based dating. He certainly lived in the Copper Age but as to when that was (historical dating using synchronisms or scientific dating) is a matter of whether C14 can be shown to be correct - and that depends on many factors hotly debated for the last twenty years. Certainly no Egyptologist would be prepared to raise the dates of the Old kingdom pyramids by 300 years. In fact the tendency in Egyptology has been to lower dates, not raise them. So C14 dating is going in one direction and historical dating is going in the opposite direction.

Your own circularity is to assume the correctness of C14 dating and then use that assumption to argue that the C14 date for Ice Man is primary evidence for the date of the Copper Age. The C14 dating method, using dendro calibration, is not a proven hypothesis.

The implication of your argument is that anything found out of an historically-dated or scientifically-dated context cannot be used as evidence against the existing interpretation of that context. But that is the whole basis of historical and archaeological reconstruction. If nothing implies anything, then why bother to review anything?

Huon

:notworthy:
The C14 dating method does not use dendrochronology. Dendrochronology uses C14.